Printable View
Is it worth it to do this swap while I'm going throught the suspension? It appears I'd have more shock options with the later setup. I'd guess it would be legal since both are on the same line in the IT regs. BTW, how about swapping to the later cam?
------------------
1988 CRX Si
ITA/HC4 wannabe
Hmmm, one of the reasons I chose the 88 was the rear suspension setup. True, the 89-91 CRX offers more options, but how many options do you need? There's only room for one shock at a time, heh, heh. Fortunately, since the 88 shares parts with the Type R Integra you are certain to find something that will fit. It was my opinion that as long as the Koni Yellow (and all of the revalving options) were available for my car, I would be okay.
As for the cam, I believe it is legal to swap in a 91 cam, along with the ecu.
------------------
'88 CRX Si - ITA/PS2 road racer: Handles like it's on jack stands
'98 ITR #0231 - DS autocrosser: Handles like I sold it
'02 Jeep Grand Cherokee - daily driver/tow vehicle: Handles like a jumping castle
After all these years, I still don't think I really understand the updating/backdating rule. How can you install a cam from a '90 CRX Si which has different specs than the cam from the '88? I would agree that if the '90 engine was exactly the same as the '88, then true, this would be legal to swap the '90 engine into a '88. BUT the '88 never came with that taller cam, so how do you think that it would be legal to swap the cams?
(Shaking off the roll cage thing)
Swap engine = OK
Swap cam = Not OK
"...Any updated/backdated components shall be substituted as a complete assembly (engine long block, transmission/transaxle, ..."
Now, if the rest of the engine - all of the engine - is identical in the original and donor up-/back-date car, then...hmm?
Is that the case?
Kirk
Yes, the rest of the engine is the same. it would be "as if" you swapped the whole engine. only the cam and ECU were changed thruout the years, its still the same d16a6 engine code.
It is legal to update the cam and the ECU.
I prefer the 88 crx because it is lighter than the 89-91
Louis
Ahh, NERDhopper - you must be wise in the way of the book. "As if" may not be good enough if you face the dragon of the tech shed.Quote:
Originally posted by Tyson:
Yes, the rest of the engine is the same. it would be "as if" you swapped the whole engine. only the cam and ECU were changed thruout the years, its still the same d16a6 engine code.
The manufacturer designation code is the same but my question is are all of the parts and their specifications the same? I don't actually know the answer to the question but, if all of the individual component P/Ns are identical, I grant you at the very least it will be effectively impossible to tell that only the cam was swapped.
If however, any of the other bits are different, there is a potential for problems.
Kirk
Edit - PS to Louis: With respect, it is specifically NOT legal to just update the cam. The question is whether or not there is a viable "work-around" that gets a person to exactly the same place that a complete engine swap would.
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited November 24, 2002).]
Kirk, if it is the same engine from 88-91 how is it illegal to use the different cam from 91 on a 88 engine, if you are correct than we can not use an 91 engine in a 88 CRX at all !! does a 88 engine has a different code than the 91 ???
I may be wrong but this is not what I learned over the last 5 years racing CRX and having at least 3 engine built by OPM and on all of them we used a newer cam.
Again I may be wrong about this issue but that is how I read the rule book and that is how OPM do read it to an I don't think they build illegal engines.
Louis
I admitted that I didn't actually know the answer to the question but the answer pivots on whether or not the engines are indeed identical - the "d16a6" designation notwithstanding.
The up- and back-date rule specifically says you can use components "substituted as a complete assembly" and specifically includes the engine long block as such. It is clear from the rules that the entire engine can be up- or back-dated among the cars on the ITA spec line but equally clear from the same rule that we cannot up- or back-date one part (cam, in this case) from that assembly.
The information that you added regarding OPM suggests that the rest of the engine parts ARE identical but I haven't actually heard anyone say that outright. If this IS the case, then an engine built out of all 1991-spec engine parts WOULD obviously be legal. Even a rules nerd like me won't quibble if some of those parts came out of a boneyard '88 or '89 donor.
Kirk
Kirk, yes the engine have the same code d16a6, sometimes these rules confusing me to!!! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif but I am sure that Fowler knows the rules more than me and if he did it I am sure it is legal.
I am going to ask few people that knows the rules and I will get you more info on that matter, I think back few years ago the ITS 240 z had the same issue with different cams from different model year but I don't remember any details, maybe you know something about that case ????
Louis
Sorry - I don't know about the Hondas OR the Z-cars...
If the part numbers of all of the engine bits are identical - in addition to the engine model designation being the same - then it make sense to me that putting the cam in the older engines is exactly like rebuilding one of those from scratch.
Kirk
err.... isnt that what i said????
"yes, the rest of the engine is the same."
Then we all agree that this cam swap is legal since the internals of the rest of the engine are the same. Now, on to a heavier matter....Since these engines are getting harder to find, why can't we swap in the SOHC ZC engine which is the JDM version from a Japanese Honda Integra. The SOHC ZC is basically the same as the D16A6 USDM engine less camshaft. These engines are low milage units direct from Japan and are quite cheap to buy. Now I realize the rules indicate only US models apply. So, to make this legal, could we not, swap ALL the parts except the cam and the block? Thus you would be doing the same thing as swapping the cam from the '90 CRX engine. (the only difference on the block is the code & s/n).
CRX History:
Originally, the 88 CRX was designed to house the 1.6L DOHC ZC engine, 130hp. Europe, Asia, Japan, Australia all had these engines, while in North America, we got the SOHC version. So now, all the kids are swapping in the DOHC version that directly bolts up to the OEM gearbox, mounts and axles. They install an Integra ECU and they way they go. However, they are leaving the cheap SOHC ZC version behind. It is cheap because nobody wants it.
And going back to the original question - No, I do not believe that you could legally swap the rear lower control arms from a newer model.
Sorry, Tyson - again, not trying to be a PITA but I was trying to clarify the distinction between the same engine designation (D16A6) and the specs of the actual parts that the thing is made of.Quote:
Originally posted by Tyson:
[B]err.... isnt that what i said????[B]
As I said, I don't know from Honda engine details but if the P/Ns of the crank, rods, block (and all other internals that must be stock) are the same, it seems to me that it doesn't make ANY difference at all if the bits came from an '88, a '91, or a boneyard in Yokosuka City.
Odd position for a rules NERD but it seems to adhere to the spririt of the rules, if you end up with what *exactly* the same engine assembly as would have come in one of the approved years on the spec line.
Happy Turkeyday!
Kirk
just to confirm. YES all the p/n and the specs for the other engine internals are the same across these years icluding pistons, rods, crank, castings, etc.
dave w
Excellent - thanks, Dave. Hey, I learned something!
Kirk
Interesting, I was thinking about swapping the other way. Want to trade?Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Is it worth it to do this swap while I'm going throught the suspension? It appears I'd have more shock options with the later setup. I'd guess it would be legal since both are on the same line in the IT regs.